Shri Prabhakar Hanamant Kanabur vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri. Prabhakar Hanamant Kanabur, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition challenging a pre-intimation notice (Form GST DRC-01A) dated February 21, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner contended that he received the notice on March 2, 2023, which was after the deadline of March 1, 2023, for filing objections, thus preventing him from submitting a response. The revenue, represented by the Additional Advocate General, filed a memo with an acknowledgement showing the petitioner received the notice on February 23, 2023, contradicting the petitioner's claim. The Assistant Commissioner subsequently passed an order on May 3, 2023.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention that he received the pre-intimation notice on March 2, 2023, was incorrect, as the revenue produced an acknowledgement showing receipt on February 23, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner had sufficient time to file a response. The Court noted that the pre-intimation notice culminated in a summary order dated May 3, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court found that an alternate and statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the KGST Act against this order. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The reliefs sought to quash subsequent notices (Annexures J, K, and L) were considered consequent to the Assistant Commissioner's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the pre-intimation notice dated February 21, 2023, issued under the GST regime, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner received it after the stipulated date for filing objections, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond? (Question of fact and law, turning on the procedural fairness of notice delivery). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was received on March 2, 2023, after the deadline of March 1, 2023, making it impossible to file a response, and therefore the notice should be quashed. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner received the notice on February 23, 2023, as evidenced by an acknowledgement, and that the petitioner's statement to the contrary in the petition was incorrect. The revenue also pointed out that the subsequent order dated May 3, 2023, had an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI. PRABHAKAR HANAMANT KANABUR
Ms.Hitha., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shashank S.Hegde., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing. Sri.Shashank S.Hegde., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gangadhar.J.M., AAG along with Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil., for respondents 1, 2 and 4 appeared in person.
A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented. Respondent No.3 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking several reliefs. One of the main prayer is seeking a Writ of Certiorari to NC: 2025:KHC-D:4762 quash the pre-intimation notice Form GST DRC-01A dated 21.02.2023 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-F.
Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
In paragraph No.6 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner contends that the pre-intimation notice dated 21.02.2023 was received by him only on 02.03.2023 and he also contends that the petitioner was served the intimation only a day after the last day for objections and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to file any response. Miss.Hitha., counsel in presenting her arguments vehemently contends that as per the intimation notice dated 21.02.2023, the petitioner was asked to file submissions by 01.03.2023 in Part-B of the Form. She argued by saying that the notice was received by the petitioner only on 02.03.2023. Counsel, therefore, submits that the notice is liable to be quashed. NC: 2025:KHC-D:4762 AAG submits that the State Government has filed a memo furnishing aof the acknowledgement stating that the petitioner received an intimation notice dated 21.02.2023 on 23.02.2023 itself. Hence, he submits that the memo may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed. The submission is noted and the memo is placed on record. A perusal of the acknowledgement would reflect that the petitioner received the same on 23.02.2023. However, he has made an incorrect statement in the petition to allege that he could not file his response on or before 01.03.2023. Needless to say, Annexures-F and G are the notices and the same have been culminated in the summary order at Annexure-H. Hence, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed the order on 03.05.2023. As against the said order, there is an alternate and statutory remedy available by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act. Hence, I decline to exercise power under the Writ juri iction. NC: 2025:KHC-D:4762
As far as the reliefs to quash Annexures J, K and L are concerned, they are consequent to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner may approach the statutory appropriate forum, if so advised. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 47
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.